Skorupski's Law

The Principal's attack on academic freedom

On 31 October-1 November 2001 an exchange of e-mails took place between the Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of St Andrews (Dr Brian Lang) and myself regarding an e-mail I had sent to the members of a search committee for a new professor of social anthropology. The exchange is more fully documented at pp. 19ff in my witness statement in the section entitled "The fifth breach of trust". The following synopsis of events is adapted from the account given in the summary of the main facts that were presented by me to the employment tribunal.

• A search committee for a new professor of social anthropology was formed in October 2001. It was chaired by Professor John Skorupski and he sought opinions from the other committee members regarding the draft particulars for the new post, and asked for suggestions as to who should be the representative on the appointments committee from the Department of Social Anthropology.

• As a member of the search committee, I e-mailed a response to Professor Skorupski and copied this reply to all of the other members of the search committee bar one (Professor Rapport) who, I suggested, should not, for academic reasons, be the Department's representative on the appointments committee. I outlined my professional reasons for stating this and drew the attention of the members of the search committee (which included the Principal of the University, Dr Lang, who has a PhD in anthropology) to a recent issue of The Australian Journal of Anthropology where Professor Rapport's work had been extensively criticised.

• My e-mail was maliciously forwarded to Professor Rapport by one of the members of the search committee. Professor Rapport immediately complained by e-mail to the Principal and he promptly e-mailed me, asking me to withdraw the comments I had made about Professor Rapport. I replied saying that I could not do that since I had presented my genuine professional opinion. However, I offered to write to Professor Rapport explaining why I had made the comments I had made to the members of the search committee. I did that immediately. This did not satisfy the Principal, and he sent me two more e-mails in quick succession insisting, then requiring, that I withdraw the remarks.

• Freedom of academic opinion is at the heart of a university lecturer's contract and I took grave exception to Dr Lang's attempt to intimidate me into withdrawing my professional opinion. For a principal (vice chancellor) to pressurise a member of academic staff like this goes so much against the spirit of a university that it is difficult to comprehend how a university could function if this practice was widespread. On 1 November 2001 (with the events that had led to the Corner/Esler investigation in mind and, now, an intimidating flurry of e-mails from the Principal himself) I indicated to Dr Lang by e-mail that I had had enough of prejudice and intimidation in the University and that I now intended to resign. I indicated that I would contact the Director of Personnel Services as soon as possible but noted that, for practical reasons, I would not be able to leave the University before the end of August 2002.

• Various individuals representing the University at the employment tribunal suggested that it was the manner in which I expressed my opinion about Professor Rapport that was offensive. My professional opinion was that Professor Rapport was unfit to be on the appointments committee and I explained why. I testified that I have never made any secret about the fact that I hold Professor Rapport's approach to anthropology to be untenable (see "Rapportage") and I lodged two published articles to this effect with the employment tribunal. Academically I thought that Professor Rapport's work should be strongly challenged since I was concerned that he was bringing both the Department of Social Anthropology at St Andrews and the discipline of social anthropology into considerable disrepute.

• If Professor Rapport thought that I had defamed him, the option of bringing proceedings against me was available to him. He chose not to do so. Instead he asked the Principal/Vice Chancellor of the University to force me to withdraw my professional opinion. The option was also open to him to reply in the journals in which I had published criticisms of his work. At least one editor invited him to do so.

• In Paragraph 17 of his witness statement Dr Clark stated: "[The Principal, Dr Lang] asked the Applicant to apologise for calling a colleague [Professor Rapport] a charlatan". This was false. I had not called Professor Rapport a charlatan.

• Under cross examination Dr Lang twice said that I had made my remarks to Professor Rapport and was twice reminded by the Tribunal Chairman that the remarks were about Professor Rapport and had not been sent directly by me to Professor Rapport. Dr Lang said that I had been "fundamentally rude to a colleague". The fact is that I had not.

• Dr Lang testified to the employment tribunal that my remarks were personal rather than professional but also said: "What's unacceptable is that you are saying that a colleague is incapable professionally". This is exactly what I was saying: it was a judgement about a colleague's professional capability. And I had referred the recipients of my e-mail to The Australian Journal of Anthropology precisely to demonstrate that my judgement was shared by other professionals.

• Dr Lang testified to the employment tribunal: "I have a duty of care to my colleagues to work in an environment in which they do not fall under the pressure of criticism". It is not clear how this squares with the concept of academic freedom. All academic work is continuously subject to criticism: if it were not, it would have little value. Professor Colin Vincent [Deputy Principal at the University at the time of the Corner-Esler investigation] testified to the employment tribunal that academic "jousting" of this kind was very desirable. It is not clear how a university could function if Dr Lang's attempts to intimidate members of staff into withdrawing their professional opinions prevailed as a general rule. Similarly, it is not difficult to understand that the consequences of regarding the kind of pressure brought to bear on the Principal by Professor Rapport as acceptable are rather dangerous.

The author

**********

Skorupski's Law: "The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality"